Appeal No. 1999-2518
Application 08/722,213
ordinary skill in the art by Collier for the reasons set forth
above regarding the rejection of claims 11, 19 and 20.
Collier does not disclose a polymeric dye transfer
inhibiting agent. However, the teaching by Panandiker that a
polymeric dye transfer inhibiting agent is useful in a laundry
detergent composition to inhibit dye transfer between laundered
fabrics (col. 1, lines 49-53; col. 2, lines 3-7) would have
fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, including
such an agent in Collier’s laundry detergent composition
(page 13, lines 27-29) to inhibit dye transfer.
The appellants argue that Panandiker does not teach or
suggest either a bleaching agent and its release time as recited
in claim 3, or delayed release of an enzyme (brief, pages 9-11).
As discussed above, the limitations in the appellants’ claims
regarding the enzyme, the bleaching agent and their release times
would have been fairly suggested to one of ordinary skill in the
art by Collier. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of
claims 1-4, 12, 14-16, 18 and 21.
Rejection of claims 5-7, 9, 10, 23 and 25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Collier in view of
Panandiker and Van Kralingen
The appellants state that claims 5-7, 9, 10, 23 and 25 stand
or fall together (brief, page 4). Hence, we limit our discussion
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007